get_build_artifact

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavior: binary files returned as base64, text as plain text, and the structure of the return value (dict with 'content' and 'encoding'). This is comprehensive for a download tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (6 lines), front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured using a list-like format for args and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all necessary behavioral details, parameter explanations, and return type.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains all three parameters: fullname, relative_path (with example), and number (default behavior). This adds key meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Download an artifact from a specific build in Jenkins', specifying the exact action (download) and resource (build artifact). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_build_artifact_url and get_all_build_artifacts by focusing on downloading content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool, including the default behavior of getting the last build when number is None. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., alternatives like getting just the URL) or provide comparisons with siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.